Posted on 01/23/2007 4:45:40 PM PST by STARWISE
Edited on 01/23/2007 6:37:01 PM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]
Good, well-worded, very sincere section on Iraq.
Welcome ;)
Good grief what is your insurance anyway at 20,000/yr?
The cost of mine is about 10,000/yr family and that is with a union involved. Any out of pocket gets run through a 125 plan so it is pre-tax. You can run over the counter meds through the 125 like vitamins, aspirin, etc.
Nice try, flaglady47, but the hard fact remains that the only reason our little debate has been pointless is your staunch refusal to acknowledge the obvious. I invite those of you who may be following this little skirmish from afar to read post 2681 and decide for yourselves who doesn't know the meaning of the word "analysis."
Finally, although I would normally applaud your decision to retreat to the safety of your kitchen, where you can do no further harm to the cause of logical reasoning, I am compelled to remind you of the maxim attributed to Harry S. Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Good night, and good luck convincing everyone how "very good" your recollection truly is.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1122114/posts
Southack posted this Bush accomplished in first term. There is more somewhere from Southack in a newer post but I could not find it.
Maybe another freeper can ping you to that one. I'm sorry you are so disappointed in President Bush. He's had little help from Congress, Republicans or Democrats and he is not perfect. If Hillary, Obama, Edwards or any Democrat becomes our next president we are going to be in a world of hurt.
No, they get it free through Medicaid, and some get it through Medicare for specific reasons. I'm not talking about retired people here, unless you are on Medicaid. What I was responding to was a comment that to those in the zero tax bracket a zero tax break had no meaning. And I agreed, it would have no meaning; however, those in the zero tax bracket get Medicaid (free health insurance paid by the state), and in some specific circumstances, some get it via Medicare. But the point I was making eluded you because you had a different agenda. You wanted to play gotcha. But, just for you, let's drop Medicare. I'll do fine, how about you?
Well, one thing I can agree with, and that's the "Bitter" part of your name. You fit your monicker.
Nope, it was YOU that brought up Medicare. You may want to be more careful in the future.
"Nope, it was YOU that brought up Medicare. You may want to be more careful in the future."
Oh, I'll be sure to take your advice. Wouldn't want to enable your gotcha game unduly. Hey wait, maybe two can play. I'll be watching you.....
Hey if you don't want your hypocrisy exposed be more careful.
We are in complete agreement!
President Bush HAS repeatedly asked for a line item veto in the past. He's never been given one and perhaps he felt that tonight's speech was neither the time nor the place to ask for it, yet again.
The Dems ran most of their '06 campaigns on "CORRUPTION", neglecting, of course, to allow a mention of their collective own to ever be raised. You know WHO cares about earmarks, don't you? WE DO! The general public is far more interested in hearing about mostly falsified, lurid tales of homosexual sex, that never happened and/or being beaten over the head with the word MACACA, which nobody had ever heard of before.
"Hey if you don't want your hypocrisy exposed be more careful."
Better be careful what you say too. Two can play the game. Nitey nite.
Just more of what is already happening now; is what I call the "state grant program".
Your questions are apt, but I notice you're not getting much of a response. Maybe it's because the answers are self-evident, and they're too painful for Republicans to think about.
By the way, the Republican candidate for Congress in my district, running for an open seat, won by campaigning vigorously against earmarks. Fortunately, he has a long legislative record that gives a man great confidence in his fortitude in voting against such crimes against the taxpayer now that he's on the Hill.
As long as we can keep electing folks like him, maybe there's hope yet. In the final analysis, that's the only answer to our dilemma.
Again, thanks for a good post.
Congress authorized him to go to war. It seems a bit short sighted that a majority find it convenient to turn on him in the middle of it. So in other words victory is currently not in the interest of the Democrat Party.... I guess all you have to do is ask yourself what if this plan works..... If the answer hurts your political ambitions then your are dancing a political fandango with the diabolical. Worse yet how many will rue the day that George W. Bush policies are vindicated and what exactly will that mean to the country....
Sure it does...it's in the Preamble. Try reading that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.